Concurrent and Consecutive Running of Sentences (s.25 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Concurrent and Consecutive Running of Sentences (s.25 BNSS)

When one trial ends in several convictions, a hidden question follows: do the prison terms run one after another (consecutive) or all at once (concurrent)? The answer is not automatic — the court must direct it, and even then a cap applies.

Section 25 BNSS [s.31 CrPC] governs sentencing on conviction of several offences at one trial:

Default is consecutive, but by direction. The court may sentence the accused to the several punishments; unless the court directs that they run concurrently, imprisonments run consecutively (one after the other) in the order the court directs.
Aggregate cap. The aggregate of consecutive sentences a Magistrate may impose shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment the Magistrate is competent to inflict for a single offence; and the person is entitled to have the aggregate not exceed 14 years in a Magistrate’s court.
Single appeal. For the purpose of appeal, the aggregate is treated as one sentence.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the 3 + 2 + 5 problem

Facts. At one trial the accused is convicted of three offences carrying 3, 2 and 5 years. The prosecution assumes the sentences will run consecutively for 10 years.

Rule. Under s.25, consecutive running requires the court to so direct; the court may instead order concurrent running, and a Magistrate’s aggregate is capped.

Apply. If the court directs concurrent running, the accused serves only 5 years (the longest). If it directs consecutive running, the terms add up, subject to the statutory cap.

Conclusion. Consecutive running is not automatic — it depends on the court’s direction and the aggregate cap. The decoy is assuming the terms simply stack.

Section 25(1) BNSS: “When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments… shall commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.”

In Simple Terms: Multiple sentences from one trial run one after another only if the court says so — and the court can order them to run together instead.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Several convictions at one trial s.25"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Court directs CONCURRENT:<br/>serve the longest only"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Court directs CONSECUTIVE:<br/>terms stack (order set by court)"]:::leaf
    B --> C["Cap: not > 2x a single term;<br/>max 14 yrs in Magistrate's court"]:::sidebox
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (1988) — where offences arise from a single transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently.
O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala (2015) — the court has discretion under s.31 CrPC (now s.25 BNSS) to order concurrent or consecutive running.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics